Comment by raminf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by raminf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If you cast the app universe as 'open' vs' 'closed' as some have tried to do or 'free' vs. 'controlled,' then yes, of course, open and free are better.

But there are a few other ways to look at it:

- Chaotic vs. orderly. - A pile of laundry vs. neatly folded - Unfiltered vs. filtered - Amateur vs. professional - Unedited vs. curated

Pick whichever way you want and your perspective might be different. It's really in how you define the context.

As far as I'm concerned the app store is a shopping mall and the proprietors have chosen to limit what kind of businesses can open shop there (no head shops or brothels). There are shoppers who are happy to go there and those who don't like the brand-name selections. There are businesses who are prospering happily and those who are struggling.

And then there are those who like to stand outside with pickets and complain that the management is squelching free speech.

Comparing it to dystopian nightmares and totalitarian regimes is quite a stretch.

I am ok with the idea that on a given app market, website, content provider, the proprietors can and should curate the content the way they decide.

What I am not ok with is that the makers of a machine I buy keep a too strict control on what I can do with this machine I bought. We are grownups, we should be allowed to use the things we buy in the way we please. As far as I know, if I do something illegal with a Porsche or an iPad, their respective makers are not responsible of that misbehavior, and therefore should not be entitled to forbid me from doing it.

> As far as I know, if I do something illegal with a Porsche or an iPad, their respective makers are not responsible of that misbehavior, and therefore should not be entitled to forbid me from doing it.

You are correct, but I am unclear as to what you could be referencing. You can add pirated MP3s, eBooks and movies to iOS devices, if you so choose. You can even jailbreak them to customise them even further, provided you don't also expect warranty service.

>You can even jailbreak them

Not if Apple had their way and were able to win that arms race.

>I am unclear as to what you could be referencing.

You're _playing_ the fool here I hope.

I put rockbox on my iPod classic, I love rockbox. Apple encrypted the device in a way to prevent aftermarket modifications and set development for that device back years while they worked to get around the restrictions apple put in.

That kind of practice is what he is referencing.

Yes, precisely.

My understanding is that Apple is able to do whatever they want to their own products. They are under no obligation to support jailbreaks, Rockbox or other modifications. Encrypting the iPod has no noticeable downside for the average user, but for a hacker, it's a pain. But Apple is under no obligation to support an alternative firmware.

Making a product do something the standard setup will not allow is the whole point of the hacker space anyway, isn't it?

PS: I don't agree with Apple's decision to encrypt the standard (non-touch) iPod line. I wonder if it was part of their licensing terms with movie studios.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com